KJV versus Modern Translations

CoreIssue · Mar 16, 2019

Deborah_ said:
Numbers are irrelevant. Think about it... if we were ever to find the original of one of Paul's letters, that single document would be more reliable than millions of copies! And the later the copy, the more likely it is to contain accumulated errors. Older copies are fewer in number (simply because they are older), but they carry more weight because they are likely to be more accurate.

Agree.

Phoneman777 · Mar 16, 2019

CoreIssue said:
I don't see the newer versions of the KJV or variants on your chart.

You do not use the 1611.

I use all versions, but the most reliable is the one based on the Textus Receptus, which itself is based on the Traditional Text: the KJV. I use the 18th century, as I'm not up on words like "speake" and "prophesie" and "vderstand".

CoreIssue · Mar 16, 2019

Phoneman777 said:
The claim by the pro-Critical Text panel participant that "the closest two Traditional Text MSS contains 6-10 variations per chapter" is a broad statement. What kind of "variations"? Do they significantly change the meaning of the passage? Should we not expect slight variations from a family of MSS that is representative of a huge body of work?

The question you refuse to answer is this:

Why is it that handwritten letters between church fathers that are older than the oldest discovered Bible MSS contain references to verses which appear in the so called "corrupt" Traditional Text, but are absent from the "so called "reliable" Alexandrian Text?

But is an accurate statement. I studied the manuscript issues for decades. They all agree on that point except for the KJVO extremists.

Watch the videos learn something from the doctors who have each studied this for decades. They quote historical citations saying the same things.

The issue is not is the KJV a Bible. The issue is it being the only true Bible.

CoreIssue · Mar 16, 2019

Phoneman777 said:
I use all versions, but the most reliable is the one based on the Textus Receptus, which itself is based on the Traditional Text: the KJV. I use the 18th century, as I'm not up on words like "speake" and "prophesie" and "vderstand".

Most reliable according to who?

Jehovah witnesses say it is the NWT. Catholics the Vulgate. Mormons include the book of Mormon.

Phoneman777 · Mar 16, 2019

Deborah_ said:
Numbers are irrelevant. Think about it... if we were ever to find the original of one of Paul's letters, that single document would be more reliable than millions of copies! And the later the copy, the more likely it is to contain accumulated errors. Older copies are fewer in number (simply because they are older), but they carry more weight because they are likely to be more accurate.

Hi, I see you are operating under the assumption that "older" means "more accurate". Says who? Did not this same Paul to whom you refer tell the Colossians that "we are not as many who corrupt the word of God"? Doesn't that mean the enemy was corrupting the word of God even before the close of the first century?

If 20 people witness and accident and 6 say the dump truck blew a stop sign doing around 35...
6 say he was doing around 30...
6 says he was doing around 25...
but 2 say, no - it was the black spot formerly known as a Smart car that blew his stop sign...

...who should the cop believe, the 2 or the "cloud of witnesses"?

CoreIssue · Mar 16, 2019

Phoneman777 said:
Hi, I see you are operating under the assumption that "older" means "more accurate". Says who? Did not this same Paul to whom you refer tell the Colossians that "we are not as many who corrupt the word of God"? Doesn't that mean the enemy was corrupting the word of God even before the close of the first century?

If 20 people witness and accident and 6 say the dump truck blew a stop sign doing around 35...
6 say he was doing around 30...
6 says he was doing around 25...
but 2 say, no - it was the black spot formerly known as a Smart car that blew his stop sign...

...who should the cop believe, the 2 or the "cloud of witnesses"?

The problem is your argument that the materials from the 1500s are more accurate than the older is you cannot cite the old material the1500 draws upon.

Dodge all you want but Erasmus was a Catholic priest.

Watch the videos. They deal with this issue, including the KJV only on the panel.

Phoneman777 · Mar 16, 2019

CoreIssue said:
But is an accurate statement. I studied the manuscript issues for decades. They all agree on that point except for the KJVO extremists.

Watch the videos learn something from the doctors who have each studied this for decades. They quote historical citations saying the same things.

The issue is not is the KJV a Bible. The issue is it being the only true Bible.

While I'll admit I don't have "decades" of study, the scholars who rip apart the arguments of your "doctors" have been studying these issues for a long, long time...going back to the beginning. From Helvidius accusing Jerome of using corrupt MSS for the Vulgate to Dean Burgon and those that followed him, this debate only continues by virtue of those who refuse to acknowledge the truth, and is why occult Luciferian secret society leaders like Albert Pike condemn the KJV while praising the others. There is nothing new under the sun. And you STILL have yet to answer the question so I'll do it for you.

The reason why those letters of the ECFs which predate any existing Bible MSS out there contain references to verses which appear in the Traditional Texts but are absent from the Alexandrian Text is because the Alexandrian removed them - precisely the kind of deletions from the indelible Word of God that Constantine needed in his desperate attempt to unite his already crumbling empire.

Phoneman777 · Mar 16, 2019

CoreIssue said:
The problem is your argument that the materials from the 1500s are more accurate than the older is you cannot cite the old material the1500 draws upon.

Dodge all you want but Erasmus was a Catholic priest.

Watch the videos. They deal with this issue, including the KJV only on the panel.

So what? He was a Catholic priest so dissatisfied with the errors of catholicism that he published a side-by-side comparison of the Byzantian Greek to the Latin on each page to show just how far off the mark was the papacy - which shows that your sympathies for Rome are much so than that of a catholic priest, does it not?

CoreIssue · Mar 16, 2019

Phoneman777 said:
So what? He was a Catholic priest so dissatisfied with the errors of catholicism that he published a side-by-side comparison of the Byzantian Greek to the Latin on each page to show just how far off the mark was the papacy - which shows that your sympathies for Rome are much so than that of a catholic priest, does it not?

That is a rewrite of history.

Enoch111 · Mar 16, 2019

CoreIssue said:
There are KJVO on the panel. Watch how their arguments fall apart.

There is a lunatic fringe among the KJVO crowd. They should be ignored. They just give a bad name to the ones who know the facts and the truth and who are scholars in their own right.

If you want the truth from a conservative Christian scholar who did his due diligence, read and study The King James Version Defended by Edward F. Hills. The King James Verison Defended by Edward F. Hills,

Also from this source The King James Version Defended by Dr. Edward F. Hills which says:
The King James Version Defended, by Dr. Edward F. Hills (available in print on Amazon), is one of the seminal works of the 20th century with regard to the preservation and translation of God's word.

In addition to presenting a solid, Bible-believing defense of pure Scripture and a clear explanation of the problems of modern textual scholarship, he explains an understandable logic of faith that should be required reading for anyone interested in studying the Bible from a believing viewpoint.

The Bible in English has fallen on hard times. Not only do some feminists see it as a format from which to transform Ancient Near Eastern, patriarchal religions into modern, 20th century paradigms of egalitarianism, but the American Bible publishing industry has reduced it to a commodity, hoping to maximize gains by imposing a marketing-manufactured consensus on conservative evangelicals, calling it the beginning of a "new tradition." Edward F. Hills in his work The King James Version Defended represents a sober and compelling argument for the "old tradition." As a well-trained classicist and an internationally recognized New Testament text critic, he analyzes the problems of both modern language translations and current New Testament text criticism methodology. With the sometimes widespread and uncritical acceptance of such translations as the New International Version by pastors as well as laymen, this defense of the historic, English Protestant Bible should be read by all who share an interest in these areas.

From the back cover:
Edward Freer Hills was a distinguished Latin and Phi Beta Kappa graduate of Yale University. He also earned the Th.B. degree from Westminster Theological Seminary and the Th.M. degree from Columbia Theological Seminary. After doing doctoral work at the University of Chicago in New Testament text criticism, he completed his program at Harvard, earning the Th.D. in this field. He is also the author of Believing Bible Study.

Hills' book has the following nine chapters:

God's Three-fold Revelation of Himself
A Short History of Unbelief
A Short History of Modernism
A Christian View of the Biblical Text
The Facts of New Testament Textual Criticism
Dean Burgeon and the Traditional New Testament Text
The Traditional New Testament Text
The Textus Receptus and the King James Version
Christ's Holy War with Satan

And no, I do not watch videos, and have no intention of doing so.

CoreIssue · Mar 16, 2019

Enoch111 said:
There is a lunatic fringe among the KJVO crowd. They should be ignored. They just give a bad name to the ones who know the facts and the truth and who are scholars in their own right.

If you want the truth from a conservative Christian scholar who did his due diligence, read and study The King James Version Defended by Edward F. Hills. The King James Verison Defended by Edward F. Hills,

Also from this source The King James Version Defended by Dr. Edward F. Hills which says:
The King James Version Defended, by Dr. Edward F. Hills (available in print on Amazon), is one of the seminal works of the 20th century with regard to the preservation and translation of God's word.

In addition to presenting a solid, Bible-believing defense of pure Scripture and a clear explanation of the problems of modern textual scholarship, he explains an understandable logic of faith that should be required reading for anyone interested in studying the Bible from a believing viewpoint.

The Bible in English has fallen on hard times. Not only do some feminists see it as a format from which to transform Ancient Near Eastern, patriarchal religions into modern, 20th century paradigms of egalitarianism, but the American Bible publishing industry has reduced it to a commodity, hoping to maximize gains by imposing a marketing-manufactured consensus on conservative evangelicals, calling it the beginning of a "new tradition." Edward F. Hills in his work The King James Version Defended represents a sober and compelling argument for the "old tradition." As a well-trained classicist and an internationally recognized New Testament text critic, he analyzes the problems of both modern language translations and current New Testament text criticism methodology. With the sometimes widespread and uncritical acceptance of such translations as the New International Version by pastors as well as laymen, this defense of the historic, English Protestant Bible should be read by all who share an interest in these areas.

From the back cover:
Edward Freer Hills was a distinguished Latin and Phi Beta Kappa graduate of Yale University. He also earned the Th.B. degree from Westminster Theological Seminary and the Th.M. degree from Columbia Theological Seminary. After doing doctoral work at the University of Chicago in New Testament text criticism, he completed his program at Harvard, earning the Th.D. in this field. He is also the author of Believing Bible Study.

Hills' book has the following nine chapters:

God's Three-fold Revelation of Himself

A Short History of Unbelief

A Short History of Modernism

A Christian View of the Biblical Text

The Facts of New Testament Textual Criticism

Dean Burgeon and the Traditional New Testament Text

The Traditional New Testament Text

The Textus Receptus and the King James Version

Christ's Holy War with Satan

And no, I do not watch videos, and have no intention of doing so.

So dump all the other scholars, doctors. professors and experts who say the KJV is a Bible but not the best translation. As well as knowing the history of the manuscripts, etc.

I do not hate the KJV as you often accuse me of doing. I simply recognize his history, manuscript evidence and simple realities such as we don't speak archaic English.

I also recognize you don't use the 1611 KJV but you talk as if you do.

And you do not realize the TR does not agree with the KJV. And that no matter how you argue, Erasmus was a Catholic priest.

Those new to the Bible and uncomfortable with the archaic English benefit from such as the NIV and NASB. But you say no.

In the link there is video dealing with the claims of New Age, Satan etc..

You are criticizing without reading what you're criticizing to know what you're talking about.

I've read the Pro KJV claims and materials. I've studied manuscripts. You have not studied anything critical of the KJV. So who is the one with a closed mind?

Phoneman777 · Mar 16, 2019

CoreIssue said:
That is a rewrite of history.

No, the revisionist historians are in the camp of the Alexandrian Text.

CoreIssue · Mar 16, 2019

Phoneman777 said:
No, the revisionist historians are in the camp of the Alexandrian Text.

And you know this how?

You refuse to listen to the experts. Does that make you a super expert?

Deborah_ · Mar 17, 2019

Phoneman777 said:
Hi, I see you are operating under the assumption that "older" means "more accurate". Says who? Did not this same Paul to whom you refer tell the Colossians that "we are not as many who corrupt the word of God"? Doesn't that mean the enemy was corrupting the word of God even before the close of the first century?

If 20 people witness and accident and 6 say the dump truck blew a stop sign doing around 35...
6 say he was doing around 30...
6 says he was doing around 25...
but 2 say, no - it was the black spot formerly known as a Smart car that blew his stop sign...

...who should the cop believe, the 2 or the "cloud of witnesses"?

None of this is to the point.
1) If you read my post carefully, I did say "likely to be more accurate". Where is the assumption there?
2) In Colossians, Paul is talking about people who preach a distorted gospel, not people who mis-copy documents. The New Testament was not yet in existence!
3) Your illustration is not appropriate. Manuscripts written over a period of centuries can't be compared with a crowd of equal eyewitnesses. Nor is the minority 'report' that much different. Rather, should the policeman believe two eyewitnesses who say the driver was doing 30 or twenty who only heard about the incident third or fourth-hand and say he was doing 25?

Stranger · Mar 17, 2019

CoreIssue said:
You do not use the 1611.

You keep saying this. So, show the differences between the KJV of 1611 and that of today.

Stranger

Phoneman777 · Mar 17, 2019

CoreIssue said:
And you know this how?

You refuse to listen to the experts. Does that make you a super expert?

You rely on "experts" that have a narrow view of the facts...and the notion that questionable MSS from Rome and Alexandria are proved to be what God originally intended for Christians to share with the world: Rome, which to this day hasn't figured out that salvation is by grace through faith in Chirst's atoning sacrifice, and Alexandria, the all time capital of occultism and where Satan saw fit to rebuilt his monument to error, the Alexandrian library.

Phoneman777 · Mar 17, 2019

Deborah_ said:
None of this is to the point.
1) If you read my post carefully, I did say "likely to be more accurate". Where is the assumption there?

Would you feel better if is changed "assumption" to "supposition"? Because you suppose that "old" means "better", do you not?

2) In Colossians, Paul is talking about people who preach a distorted gospel, not people who mis-copy documents. The New Testament was not yet in existence!

"...that you soon not be shaken in mind, nor troubled, neither by spirit, nor by word, nor by letter as from us..." Does Paul acknowledge that there were things written (which are subject to being copied) in his day that were a corruption of the truth? Yes, he does.

3) Your illustration is not appropriate. Manuscripts written over a period of centuries can't be compared with a crowd of equal eyewitnesses. Nor is the minority 'report' that much different. Rather, should the policeman believe two eyewitnesses who say the driver was doing 30 or twenty who only heard about the incident third or fourth-hand and say he was doing 25?

You accuse me of inappropriateness", but look how you've leave the minority 2 at the scene while removing the majority, an absolutely unfair distinction. All we have are copies, some of which tell the truth and others which do not.

Phoneman777 · Mar 17, 2019

CoreIssue said:
And you know this how?

You refuse to listen to the experts. Does that make you a super expert?

Writings of Early Church Fathers support the Textus Receptus:
"There are three that bare record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit, and these three are one." 1 John 5:7

The Critical Text completely distorts this verse but it is clearly referenced in the The Treatises of Cyprian, 1:1:6 c. 250 A.D:

"The Lord says, 'I and My Father are one,' and again it is written of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, 'these three are One.' "
---------------------------------------------------
"For thine is the kingdom, and the power, and the glory, for ever. Amen"

In the Didache ("Teachings"), an abbreviation of The Teachings of the Twelve Apostles, written by Tatian disciple of Justin Martyr and dated between 70-120 A.D., the entire Lord's Prayer is recorded, including the above, but is omitted from the Critical Text.

Tatian's Diatessaron, a harmony of the four Gospels which he translated in Syriac and became the authoritative text of the Gospels in Syria for centuries, contains the entire Lord's prayer, including this part which is omitted from the Critical Text.
----------------------------------------------------
In Matthew 19:16-17, the word "Good" which precedes "Master" is omitted by the Alexandrian Text, which also goes on to change, "Why callest thou Me good" into the corrupted rendering, "why do you ask me about what is good?". However, Hippolytus in his The Refutation of All Heresies, book VII, chapter 18, makes clear, undeniable reference to what is found in the Traditional Text.
----------------------------------------------------
In Matthew 20:16, "for many are called, but few chosen" is clearly stated in the Traditional Text but omitted by the Critical Text although it is found in Irenaeus' Against Heresies, book IV, chapter 7.

So, to which camp do the "revisionist historians" belong, I ask again?

CoreIssue · Mar 17, 2019

Stranger said:
You keep saying this. So, show the differences between the KJV of 1611 and that of today.

Stranger

King James Bible
Notice the apocrypha?

Do you read this archaic English?

You read 1769 version.

CoreIssue · Mar 17, 2019

CoreIssue said:
King James Bible
Notice the apocrypha?

Do you read this archaic English?

You read 1769 version.

Phoneman777 said:
Writings of Early Church Fathers support the Textus Receptus:
"There are three that bare record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit, and these three are one." 1 John 5:7

The Critical Text completely distorts this verse but it is clearly referenced in the The Treatises of Cyprian, 1:1:6 c. 250 A.D:

"The Lord says, 'I and My Father are one,' and again it is written of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, 'these three are One.' "
---------------------------------------------------
"For thine is the kingdom, and the power, and the glory, for ever. Amen"

In the Didache ("Teachings"), an abbreviation of The Teachings of the Twelve Apostles, written by Tatian disciple of Justin Martyr and dated between 70-120 A.D., the entire Lord's Prayer is recorded, including the above, but is omitted from the Critical Text.

Tatian's Diatessaron, a harmony of the four Gospels which he translated in Syriac and became the authoritative text of the Gospels in Syria for centuries, contains the entire Lord's prayer, including this part which is omitted from the Critical Text.
----------------------------------------------------
In Matthew 19:16-17, the word "Good" which precedes "Master" is omitted by the Alexandrian Text, which also goes on to change, "Why callest thou Me good" into the corrupted rendering, "why do you ask me about what is good?". However, Hippolytus in his The Refutation of All Heresies, book VII, chapter 18, makes clear, undeniable reference to what is found in the Traditional Text.
----------------------------------------------------
In Matthew 20:16, "for many are called, but few chosen" is clearly stated in the Traditional Text but omitted by the Critical Text although it is found in Irenaeus' Against Heresies, book IV, chapter 7.

So, to which camp do the "revisionist historians" belong, I ask again?

But the TR and the KJV disagree with each other.

KJV versus Modern Translations

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Similar threads